Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Use Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff to pilot developer‑funded contractor inspections for solar projects
Summary
Grundy County highway staff proposed piloting a developer‑funded contractor to handle road‑use agreements, inspections and enforcement for solar and other large developments to ensure consistent monitoring and to recover costs through fee schedules.
Agency official said the county will pilot contracting an outside engineering firm to manage road‑use agreements for large developments, including solar farms, with the developer covering the contractor’s costs.
Why it matters: County staff told the committee they are handling more complex road‑use issues—preconstruction inventories, inspection, enforcement and long‑term follow‑up—than the small in‑house team can sustain. The pilot would assign those duties to a contracted firm whose costs would be passed through to developers via the county’s fee schedule.
At the meeting, the agency official described recurring problems that the county has observed on solar projects: mud tracked onto township roads, trucks using undesignated access points, and construction activities that require frequent field follow‑up. The official said Hutchinson (an engineering firm) provided sample agreements and that other counties and townships have used contracted inspectors to maintain consistent oversight. "If they are pulling out of undesignated areas, we can stop them if we need to find them," the agency official said.
Staff emphasized the need for agreements that extend beyond construction completion, noting that road damage or other issues may appear months after a site goes live. The agency official said the county has pressed for longer post‑construction monitoring on previous projects, and that contracting can provide daily diaries, photo documentation, and enforceable records tied to the special‑use permit and the road‑use agreement.
Committee members asked about cost and enforcement mechanics. The agency official said the contractor’s minimum hourly charge could be roughly $150–$200 an hour and that a full‑time inspector on a construction schedule could push into thousands of dollars per week; however, those costs would be invoiced to the developer, not the county’s general fund. "We’ll make sure that that cost is put upfront" in the fee schedule used during land‑use review, the staff member said.
The discussion was presented as an informational FYI; several members signaled support for the pilot, noting townships that had already indicated approval through their road‑commissioner association. Staff said it would begin rolling the approach out immediately for pending solar‑project requests and provide formal agreement language and fee schedules to the committee for review.
The committee did not take a formal vote to adopt the contractor approach at the meeting; staff said they will circulate the proposed agreements and fee schedule for committee review ahead of board action.
